Can failing to object to expert testimony constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? State v. Moore Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Moore addressed whether trial counsel’s failure to object to expert testimony on human trafficking constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case provides important guidance on the prejudice standard required to establish such claims.

Background and Facts

Moore was convicted of human trafficking of a child after helping his 22-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old girl engage in commercial sex work for approximately three months. At trial, the State called an expert to educate the jury about human trafficking generally. The expert testified about various trafficking scenarios, including kidnapping and holding victims against their will, though she acknowledged knowing nothing about the case facts and never referred to the specific victims or opined on Moore’s conduct. The expert used terms like “victim” and “survivor” when discussing trafficked individuals generally.

Key Legal Issues

Moore appealed, claiming his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for: (1) not objecting to irrelevant portions of the expert’s testimony and her use of “victim” and “survivor” terminology, and (2) not seeking a mistrial after the trial court expressed concerns about the testimony’s relevance to the case facts.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the two-prong Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring both deficient performance and prejudice. Assuming counsel’s performance was deficient, the court focused on whether Moore suffered prejudice. The court found no prejudice for several reasons: (1) the expert’s testimony was clinical rather than inflammatory, (2) the jury knew the case context from opening statements, (3) the expert made no case-specific opinions, (4) the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, and (5) the State’s evidence was strong, including detailed testimony from the victim and admissions by Moore’s family members. Regarding the mistrial claim, the court found counsel was not ineffective because any motion would have been futile given the trial court’s ability to cure concerns through jury instructions.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that ineffective assistance claims require more than showing technical deficiencies in counsel’s performance. Practitioners must demonstrate actual prejudice—that the outcome would likely have been different. When challenging expert testimony, focus on whether it was so inflammatory or prejudicial that it affected the trial’s fundamental fairness, not merely whether portions were irrelevant. The decision also highlights the importance of jury instructions as a cure for potentially problematic testimony.